3 ms·

Barely event matters, if your great aunt sends her DNA to some online heritage service, the game is basically over. Unfortunately, like it or not, your DNA isn'

by arsome 3y ago

Barely event matters, if your great aunt sends her DNA to some online heritage service, the game is basically over. Unfortunately, like it or not, your DNA isn't yours.

zlg_codes 3y ago
Perhaps not in the current legal climate, but those can be changed. Since DNA is the source code to your body, I think we're in for some interesting times. It can be argued that your DNA is a part of you, since it made you, and it can be made illegal to gather or even sequence our DNA unless certain thresholds are crossed. Like it or not, politics is not a singular immutable thing. We can reframe things, just as governments do to justify their garbage. Society is but putty, and we can mold it to our liking, or sit quietly like livestock and await government to decide what we're allowed to think and feel.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Even if we change it today, wouldn't all of the docile little sheep that used ancestry.com or 23andMe type sites provide such a baseline that for generations future humans could be traced back. Supposedly, they can track back a very large portion of the population to Genghis Khan
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- PeterisP 3y ago
  It seems that the point which parent post wanted to make with "your DNA is not really yours" is that matching your DNA does not really need your DNA, as the DNA of your relatives (e.g. that aunt which opted-in to some genetic testing) is sufficient - your DNA isn't really yours because all your blood relatives share big parts of it, so their consent to use their DNA effectively provides most of your DNA as well.
drdaeman 3y ago
> Unfortunately, like it or not, your DNA isn't yours. The current trends seem to go against this, saying that even things like image, voice, or memories about us are all somehow private even in a public setting, and cannot be used without a permission of their owner. DNA is essentially in the same category - even more so, we leave it just about everywhere, yet most people think about it as something extremely intimate, much more so than a picture from a public venue (where opinions sort of diverge). And whenever I agree on disagree, I can totally understand why this is happening and why the current trends are like this. It's basically a reaction of the society trying to protect itself from abuse by the entities of similar (large) scale. All this stuff is basically a (relatively) new dilemma of the information age, where we've gained an ability to store, analyze and transfer large arrays of data efficiently. Paired with technologies (such as cameras or sequencers) becoming more affordable to deploy at scale. Sadly, consumer technologies (empowering "normal" people) drastically lag behind business and government tech, so before your casual Joe ever gets a chance to have some meaningful (and not really privacy-breaking; although there's rarely an incentive to develop tech that doesn't break this) use cases, large corporations and governments ruin everything.

by arsome 3y ago

Barely event matters, if your great aunt sends her DNA to some online heritage service, the game is basically over. Unfortunately, like it or not, your DNA isn't yours.

zlg_codes 3y ago

Perhaps not in the current legal climate, but those can be changed. Since DNA is the source code to your body, I think we're in for some interesting times. It can be argued that your DNA is a part of you, since it made you, and it can be made illegal to gather or even sequence our DNA unless certain thresholds are crossed. Like it or not, politics is not a singular immutable thing. We can reframe things, just as governments do to justify their garbage. Society is but putty, and we can mold it to our liking, or sit quietly like livestock and await government to decide what we're allowed to think and feel.

dylan604 3y ago
Even if we change it today, wouldn't all of the docile little sheep that used ancestry.com or 23andMe type sites provide such a baseline that for generations future humans could be traced back. Supposedly, they can track back a very large portion of the population to Genghis Khan
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
PeterisP 3y ago
It seems that the point which parent post wanted to make with "your DNA is not really yours" is that matching your DNA does not really need your DNA, as the DNA of your relatives (e.g. that aunt which opted-in to some genetic testing) is sufficient - your DNA isn't really yours because all your blood relatives share big parts of it, so their consent to use their DNA effectively provides most of your DNA as well.

drdaeman 3y ago

> Unfortunately, like it or not, your DNA isn't yours. The current trends seem to go against this, saying that even things like image, voice, or memories about us are all somehow private even in a public setting, and cannot be used without a permission of their owner. DNA is essentially in the same category - even more so, we leave it just about everywhere, yet most people think about it as something extremely intimate, much more so than a picture from a public venue (where opinions sort of diverge). And whenever I agree on disagree, I can totally understand why this is happening and why the current trends are like this. It's basically a reaction of the society trying to protect itself from abuse by the entities of similar (large) scale. All this stuff is basically a (relatively) new dilemma of the information age, where we've gained an ability to store, analyze and transfer large arrays of data efficiently. Paired with technologies (such as cameras or sequencers) becoming more affordable to deploy at scale. Sadly, consumer technologies (empowering "normal" people) drastically lag behind business and government tech, so before your casual Joe ever gets a chance to have some meaningful (and not really privacy-breaking; although there's rarely an incentive to develop tech that doesn't break this) use cases, large corporations and governments ruin everything.